Public Vs. Public Health Essay

In The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care (2009), the author of the book, T.R. Reid travels to industrialized democracies to discuss the different methods of health care delivery system used in these developed countries and compare them to the health care system of the United States. According to T.R. Reid (2009), “the thesis of this book is that we can find cost-effective ways to cover every American by borrowing ideas from foreign models of health care” (Reid, 2009, p. 11). This thesis illustrates that the American health care system can manage health care costs effectively and provide care to all by using some of the successful health care delivery models of foreign nations. The purpose of this book analysis is to discuss the four different health care models presented in this book and provide my prioritization or ranking of these models. This analysis also aims to investigate a case known as the Nikki White case described in this book and discuss the lessons learned from it. Furthermore, this analysis is going to provide my remarks on the, “An Apple a Day” comment relative to the Public Health Model. Lastly, in this book analysis, I will share my conclusion on the basic premise of the book along with my take away messages that I will remember into my future as a Public Health professional.

The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.”( Creech, Mark H. “Universal Health Care Is Unbiblical. ) Is access to health care a human right, or a valued social good, or neither? In 2003 the Institute of Medicine published a report, Insuring America's Health, which contained five principles for evaluating various strategies for health care reform. The first principle, "the most basic and important," was that health care coverage should be universal. The idea that access to health care should be universal, however, has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the ongoing discussion of how to reform the U.S. healthcare system. In Opposing Viewpoints: Universal Health Care, authors explores the

Leonard Peikoff, “Health Care Is Not Right” and Andrew Bradley “Positive rights, negative rights and health care” debate the morality of a government funded health care system. Although both authors give ample evidence in support of their posture on this matter, Andrew Bradley presents a more clear and concise reasoning that supports his belief that “health care is a human right and …should be guaranteed” (Bradley 1). He effectively reveals the fallacies of Peikoff’s “negative rights” and “positive rights” assertion by examining the correlation between the two.

Simultaneously, health and healthcare policy plays a tremendous role in the quality of life of every American. Likewise, by the government constantly interceding, health and healthcare is significantly influenced by the political climate and undertakings of administration; therefore creating a conflictual split between republicans and democrats. Health care is regarded as a product rather than a human right shaped by policymaking. Policies establish healthcare service stipulations, which are rooted in local, state, and federal statutes combined with landmark court decisions. Not only does policy focus on healthcare services; but, it also places a substantial emphasis on cost-efficiency and equality.

Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.

Some health care costs may be paid by the patient and some health care costs may be covered by the universal health insurance program. There is perhaps no domain of economic activity that has generated more controversy in the United States than health care. In the advanced capitalist world, the United States is the only country within which the market plays a substantial role in the delivery of health care services; all other countries have one form or another of universal, publicly supported health care policies. In other intance if we differ from what is universal health from socialized heatlh. Some people refer to universal health care as socialized medicine. The term “socialized medicine” is primarily used for only in the United States by those who do not support the idea of universal health care(cite). Given the understanding that outside the US, is a different situation saying that the terms most used are universal health care or public health

The availability of healthcare is an extremely important issue in the United States. There are millions of Americans that are uninsured in the U.S. A high amount of uninsured people are from minority groups such as Hispanics and African-Americans. High deductible payments, the cost of prescription drugs, and lack of health insurance coverage cause many Americans to choose to live without insurance to save money for everyday expenses beside healthcare. Without health insurance, people do not have access to quality healthcare. Most citizens are aware of the issues in the healthcare system, but the disagreement comes when discussing how the best approach on ameliorating the system. Some believe that a more public and universal healthcare system is the best approach. Others believe that America works best through free enterprise and private institutions, and believe health insurance should be more privatized. However, health care has been shown to work best and be more available through proper public government control as it will allow for all Americans to have access to equal healthcare, in which money does not dictate health.

One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.

In 2007, more than 45 million Americans did not have health care insurance. The United States is the only industrialized major nation in the world without health care, and the debate about changing that has become a popular issue recently. The sharp difference between the two sides is a difference in ethical values; those for universal health care desire to see the government help others, mainly the lower class, and those who do not, wish that private companies be allowed to continue taking advantage of the status quo for profit. In this paper, I will argue why the Government should put in place The Universal Healthcare Systems.[1]

Long before the 1990s when Ms. Clinton fought for a Universal Healthcare system in America, the issue of America’s healthcare had been a political quandary. The enactment of the Republican administration’s Health Management Organization Act of 1973 was a weapon meant to address that crisis, yet, it did little to fix the problem. While the liberal Democrats are fighting for Universal Healthcare coverage for all Americans, the conservative Republicans are fighting to maintain the current private health insurance, however, with some revamping of the system, which preserves the capitalistic element of the status quo. The reason for the two opposing views stems from their differences in political ideologies, which theoretically is like pitting socialism against capitalism. While the liberal Democrats’ endorsement of Universal Healthcare system is socialistic in practice, the conservative Republicans’ fight to retain the private or market based plan is unarguably in support of their pro-capitalism stance. The truth, however, is that, though almost every American believes in capitalism, yet, almost none would vote to disband the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, both of which are socialistic. In that light, the argument of a pro-capitalist nation is negated, as we do already have a socialized healthcare program for the seniors and the poor. Extending that concept to include

Socialized medical systems are designed to disregard the insurance industry and disregard income while providing health care for all. Healthcare in the United States is constantly changing and advancing, which requires the cost of health insurance to rise. The idea of socialized medicine is prominent, until the aspects of socialized medicine are brought to attention. Every aspect of a socialized health care industry is controlled and powered by the government; most doctors, nurses, medics and administrators are government employees, and the government decides when, where, and how services are provided. Even though socialized healthcare systems would save money, it is a prominent idea but not worth the problems because total government control over the way healthcare is distributed would result in complications of the citizens.

In recent years, health care has been a huge topic in public debates, legislations, and even in deciding who will become the next president. There have been many acts, legislations, and debates on what the country has to do in regards to health care. According to University of Phoenix Read Me First HCS/235 (n.d.), “How health care is financed influences access to health care, how health care is delivered, the quality of health care provided, and its cost”.

The paper is broken up in to three sections. In section one, we will discuss the problems with the American Healthcare system and we will try and clear up some of the often misrepresented facts about the healthcare problems and solutions to fix them. In section two, we will present some of the solutions being put forward to fix the healthcare system, including plans by both Presidential Candidates

The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

The right to health care is tantamount to socialism and therefore should be left as the responsibility of an individual and not a function of the government to secure a person’s health care. Thus government’s provision of healthcare could reduce the availability and quality of healthcare, resulting to enormous government deficits and debts. This paper is going to explore the reasons why the government should not provide free health care to its citizens.